The way I look at it is that they already have access to it in some shape or form. They don't need to crack the BB encryption to get it. Your email, BBM's. IMs, Map history info, etc. is on a server somewhere. Only a search warrant away, if they need access to it. Maybe not even that, thanks to the Patriot Act. Maybe not actively monitoring but able to trace back what's needed. They've got the voice calls being cataloged and searched for keywords and sms isn't exactly secure. There are even laws against "using electronic communications in furtherance of a crime", so not only will they bust you for the crime you planned, but for planning it on your phones.

From what I understand with the Middle East, it sounds like the govt's there could see that there was BB traffic but couldn't tell anything else about it. What RIM probably did was show them how to decipher where the data came from and where it is going. They can't read the email, but they can trace the origin and destination, then you go get the email from the server.

India and other governments have tried to get into Blackberry systems through back door access. Is anyone worried that the US government is keeping tabs on blackberry users?

Of course I am. Notice how the US hasn't been vocal, demanding access the way the other governments are? Isn't it conceivable that these companies like RIM, Microsoft, and Google could be subsidized by and/or partnered up with the US government?

To the OP, myself, I am not worried at all about US or in my case, Canadian governments keeping track of my BB usage. I am not doing anything worth losing sleep over. I have not once stated anything that would bring attention to me. In these or any other forums or on my berry.

Of course I am. Notice how the US hasn't been vocal, demanding access the way the other governments are? Isn't it conceivable that these companies like RIM, Microsoft, and Google could be subsidized by and/or partnered up with the US government?

Which government? Research in Motion is a Canadian corporation.

Our governments admits to being stuck in the '60's when it comes to information technology. There is pending legislation to address these issues, but it still a long way from becoming law in this land.

Our governments admits to being stuck in the '60's when it comes to information technology. There is pending legislation to address these issues, but it still a long way from becoming law in this land.

RIM is Canadian, yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't cooperation taking place between the US, Canada, and various "multinational" corporations. "Distant Early Warning" was in Canada, but it was largely a US endeavor.

As for being stuck in the '60s when it comes to technology, that may be what governments want us to think. It may even be true when it comes to sectors of government that the people interface with (e.g. social institutions), but I'm sure it's not true when it comes to the defense and spying sectors of these governments, especially those of the US. You don't think it has a version of Google Earth that's at least 10 times better than the one available to me and you?

The interception of communications is essential for investigating and prosecuting serious crime and combating terrorism. The police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) require lawful access to communications in some instances, including investigations into organized crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, and child sexual abuse.

There is currently no legal requirement for companies offering telecommunications services in Canada to build intercept capability into their networks. As a result, we now have situations where judicial authorization is granted (i.e. a warrant is issued), but cannot be effected because the service provider's network is not intercept-capable. Criminals and terrorists are aware of interception “safe havens” and exploit them to continue their criminal activities undetected.
...

The Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act will address challenges posed by modern technologies that did not exist when the legal framework for interception was designed nearly 40 years ago.
...

One of the consequences of our governments addressing these issues, we learn more about the current state of the art. Similar issues are being debated in the USA.

I overgeneralized when I posted that last night, after a few. Our IT is 21'st Century, it is the Courts that have to keep pace.